eBay Fraudulent dealer - worldcurrencyandcoin or Numis-phil (S) Pte Ltd in Singapore

I didn't realize he was doing the transaction outside of ebay.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

According to the OP he asked the seller to end the listing so they could complete the transaction outside of eBay, which is a violation of eBay's policy, and also why eBay and PayPal will not cover the OP with Buyer Protection.

 

It's an attempt by a seller to avoid eBay fees, not so much to have as many transactions completed through them.

That's completely different from seller and buyer agreeing to complete the sale outside of eBay for an item that was listed on eBay. You're also forgetting one thing. If the buyer SNADS the sale that they had an active part in completing outside of eBay, don't you think the seller is going to provide emails that prove both agreed to complete the transaction outside of eBay?

This statement is operating on the premise that people are required to use PayPal to begin with. Remember, PayPal is only an option available to the seller as a form of payment they want to accept. They're not required to choose that option.

All of which is really neither here nor there in the OP's situation. He solicited the seller to end the listing, and complete the transaction outside of eBay, and in doing so he forfeited his rights for Buyer Protection as both eBay and PayPal prohibit this activity.

 

No, and you well know this was not what I was saying. Again, my only point was that if paypal can legally use ebay as an excuse to avoid their own protection policy, why use their service over another?

I understand what it is, but do you really believe that ebay does not have a vested interest in having as many transactions as possible completed through them? The protection policy is nothing more than a calculated business move. Ebay is not a caring friend just trying to look out for you or me. Not that there is anything wrong with this - business is business - but it's foolish to imply that any part of ebay policy is there only to protect the little guy.

How is this any different? Either way the item (in my scenario) was listed on ebay, but sold outside.

No, I am not forgetting anything. Why do you think ebay asks that outside offers be reported? It's not to protect anything other than their bottom line. As for the seller providing emails, sure... but that's not the point. Why should paypal be allowed to void their well advertised, stand alone (non ebay transaction) policy just because an item sold elsewhere was also listed on ebay? It's nothing but a cop out.

You're right... this has nothing to do with the OP or his unfortunate situation, but all are still arguable points regardless of personal feelings either way. Even though I can understand the OP's frustration, I find it in very poor taste that in this thread, he has slammed ebay for not protecting him. After all (and as you said) he forfeited this protection when he agreed to an outside of ebay transaction. However, this should not negate paypal's responsibility to their customers. Mikecouil hit it on the head in saying that paypal is giving excuses because the seller is not in the states. The probability of recouping the loss is likely low. If paypal could simply pull the funds from the sellers account (as they would do with you or me) they probably would have done so by now. Paypal's protection policy is designed to protect one party over all others... paypal, and its as simple as that.

 

I might have something to do with the fact that one violates the law (contract law) and is an invalid transaction while there is no evidence that the second (local store) violated any contract. You see, your agreement with eBay is a valid and binding contract. If you don't like it, you don't have to agree to it. But if you do business through eBay, you have and must have agreed to it. And, yes, any company as well as any court is not bound by an illegal contract. Simple and absolute!

 

What you quoted was my response to BU's in regards to a hypothetical scenario from an earlier post, so unless I am misunderstanding you (which if the case, I apologize) please explain how the DLRC examples are not violating a contract, but my scenario would be. How would I be in violation of contract law by offering - and selling - an item that was both advertised and sold totally outside of ebay even though it was also listed on the site, but DLRC is not for doing the exact same thing? They do business through ebay and "must have agreed to it" too.

What is simple and absolute is that the burden of proof rests upon the accuser, not the accused. Beyond this, even if paypal can prove that a policy was violated, they should not sit back and ignore a blatant theft that they facilitated.

I do want to make it clear that I have no personal problem with ebay or their policies. This is all for the sake of discussion only.

 

Sounds to me like you possibly gifted the money to the seller. In which case you do not have any protection from ebay at all. Also, I don't think PayPal will cover you either. Unfortunately you have an expensive lesson to accept. good luck

 

Are they using eBay as an excuse?

Of course eBay has a vested interest to have as many transactions be completed through them. The listing fees, end of sale fees, percentage of selling price. But ask yourself this Book, why else would a seller, or buyer, want to complete the transaction outside of eBay but for only one reason, to avoid all those fees.

The difference is, you found a seller without the use of eBay, even though the item was listed on eBay. Neither you nor the buyer, in your hypothetical, solicited one another to end the listing and complete the sale outside of eBay. Such an offer is prohibited in eBay's policies.

Because it violates their policy, and is a clear attempt to avoid paying the end of sale fees.

If eBay didn't own PayPal, I would agree they should do what they can to protect the buyer. But eBay does own PayPal, and PayPal's policies can't conflict with eBay's. The other thing to look at too, is when exactly did the OP report this to PayPal, or eBay for that matter? If it was the same time frame after the sale was complete, that he reported a charge back with his credit card company, he's still out of luck. PayPal's Buyer Protection requires the complaint to be filed within 45 days from the date of the sale, and will cover this if the item was purchased on eBay, with a PayPal account.

Middle of the page:

http://pages.ebay.com/help/buy/paypal-buyer-protection.html

 

First, DLRC may (I have no specific knowledge) be big enough to have a separate deal with eBay and it could run either way. Neither you not I know what it is.
Second, it is 50/50 which site was seen by the buyer for DLRC. For the OP it was 100% from eBay both by his admission and, unless you know something to the contrary, only displayed on eBay.

BTW, I believe that my first answer is not only likely, but I would be surprised if it were not the case. Just a guess, but DLRC probably pays a flat fee regardless of what they sell - or where it is sold.

Additionally, not only is PayPal not expected to do anything but "sit back and ignore a blatant theft", I would bet that by knowing that the op violated the law, it would then be against the law for them to do otherwise and they could be prosecuted for assisting a crime. I say that mostly because PayPal is owned by eBay (re; knowing that there was a crime), but it would not surprise me that the CC company is in the same boat.

 

Just something to toss into this discussion:

I spent this Labor Day with some relatives, 3 of which are attorneys. Two work for the D.A.'s office, and one has a general practice excepting a wide range of cases, including cases involving contracts.

His take was this, the OP could file action against eBay, but in his opinion he would lose that action because he and the seller both violated the user agreement by completing this outside of eBay through a solicitation to do so.

He could file suit against PayPal, but would have to prove PayPal acted in such a manner that caused him to be out the $6k. What did PayPal actually do in this case? The same thing they do in every use of their service, provide a neutral, secure payment method between the parties. Unless the OP can prove that PayPal had knowledge the seller was committing a fraud, or about to commit a fraud and allowed the transaction to occur anyway, the buyer still would not win against PayPal. Short of an employee at PayPal having a brain fart and saying they knew about this fraud but allowed it to happen, the OP would have a extremely difficult time proving PayPal is culpable in this.

He does have an actionable case against the seller; however, according to my relative, this could cost the OP much more, as much as twice what he's out already, in legal fees, whether he wins or loses. The case would have to be heard in Singapore, and the attorney would have to research what fees for filing the case, motions, etc., would be there, which adds billable time to the tab. Not to mention travel expenses, accommodations in Singapore, would all be added to the OP's legal bill.

 

To me since they bypassed ebay, if in the emails between the buyer and seller, the seller didn't include photos of the coin that was going to be delivered....how can it be fraud? The buyer is basing what he was suppose to get off pictures from an ebay auction that was ended, because he wanted to bypass it with the seller.

The seller could claim the buyer got what he bought.

Hopefully I explained this right so it is easy to understand, it makes sense in my head (hahahahahaa)

 

Sending payment as a gift avoids PayPal fees, too. The buyer, looking for a sweet deal, attempted to cheat Ebay and PayPal out of their fees, and in the end, got cheated himself. Cheaters never prosper.

 

The "contract" says that if you see/find/discover it on eBay, it must be sold through eBay. How much simpler can I put it?

 

If ebay owns paypal, and paypal was used for the transaction, then technically everything was still done through ebay.

 

Same SOB mailed me an empty envelope for $160. Ebay did absolutely nothing except remove my feedback.

 

This is a seller who sends customers empty envelopes with no item for $160. He's the biggest POS on eBay aside from eBay employees.

 

Not exactly sure how you managed that. I spent close to $5K on an empty envelope, and eBay required me to file a report with my local police (which of course is nonsensical, but they sent an officer who duly filed a report), but they gave me my money back.

 

How I managed it? I made the mistake of buying a $160 off a marketplace best known for its corruption, utter lunacy, policies that reward crime and punish honesty; making up for it by hiring the mentally disabled, then losing whatever goodwill that got them by putting them in charge of making nuanced decisions that affect people's finances.

I compounded the mistake by doing so during the first few months of covid insanity when shipments were said (by seller) to take up to 3 months. I mean, this virus was going to kill us all anyway so what's $160?

Anyway, he never shipped, was very rude when I contacted him to ask if he could access tracking information from his end of things (with foreign sellers occasionally they can get actual tracking history when logged into their shipping portal whereas from the buyer's end nothing shows up), and after three attempts at reaching out directly and now months post-sale, I opened a case with eBay and was naive enough to assume that their prerogative was to do what is right when it reality who's right in a dispute is not something that ever crosses the minds of the very special people mediating them.

This is a corporation whose CEO and board of directors help meetings on company time to discuss the best strategies for cyberstalking a woman, settling on mailing her a box of live cockroaches and a bloody pig's head mask among other things. The culture there hasn't changed a bit in the last six months.

Those people hired the HR director who set the criteria for hiring the low-level morons who don' t know anything and aren't empowered to anything even if they did, and are the only employees they grant the overwhelming majority of both buyers and sellers any sort of access to.

Anyway, once the idiot brigade was involved, the seller suddenly changes tone and starts talking as though he's a civilized human. He offers to "re-send" for "free." He picked the slowest possible shipping option and even then didn't actually part with the shipment for 8 or 9 days after he produced the tracking number.

A few weeks after that I received it, and the only thing in the envelope was page torn from a magazine depicted in the photo. I subsequently inform eBay that I still had not received the item I paid for. They informed me that since 21 days had passed since agreed to ship the item and posted a tracking number, the case was closed. Once closed a case can never be reopened regardless of circumstance. At least that was according to three different members of the eBay idiot brigade.

Once when I was the seller, eBay made a decision that even PayPal disagreed with. In a separate instance, I was living in New Orleans when Katrina hit. I evacuated by only about 40 miles north. Ebay upheld a very nasty negative feedback left by the buyer of a voodoo doll I bought for $0.85 in the French Market downtown. Made-in-China. It's not like they were imported from Haiti. But she didn't get her doll in time to cast the spell to make the man of her dreams fall in love with her and didn't care that I had literally lost all of my earthly possessions including a house that had homeowners but not flood insurance (until then nobody knew floods weren't covered by homeowners insurance), that nobody in the rural area where I had evacuated had cell phone service for three weeks after the storm had passed or that the national guard was only allowing "essential worker" use of the infrastructure.

On top of all that, I shipped her item on-time. It was inside the main New Orleans USPS site when the levee broke and the post office was flooded floor-to-ceiling.

That's the kind of person eBay seeks to attract and retain at the expense of however many honest people it takes to make sure she's happy.

I know I should leave the relationship, but eBay says they love me and I really believe this time they're really to try hard to change.

 

I'd stay way from any sellers based in Singapore.

Years back I had two bad experiences coins purchased from two unethical individuals based there. In both instances the issues were fake coins.

One seller told me to return the coin for a refund, which I did, and never heard back from him. The occurred early in my on-line buying activities, so, stupidly (in retrospect) I bought the coin outside eBay and paid by wire transfer. So, I was left up the preverbal creek without the preverbal paddle.

The other coin was purchased through eBay, so I was able to recover my money.

I my mind, Singapore is in the same boat as China regarding coin purchases. If you order from sellers based in those countries, the odds are very high that you'll end up with a bogus coin.

 

You also get morons selling junk in the US.
Check out the crap this idiot is posting on Ebay. josal1443. Complete idiocy but the scum at Ebay don’t care.